Arturo
-
Posts
13,696 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by Arturo
-
-
*On the other hand, another argument could be as to WHY they keep doing periodic revivals of shows on Broadway, and often with little things done differently or changed/added from what the original staging was like. Same difference, as it were.*
Yes, but there's no film of that performance that's easily accessible for future generations, either by streaming, buying the DVD, tuning into TCM, etc. Two different media, one on celluloid for posterity, the other maybe a cast record at best.
-
*I've always thought an interesting remake would be to update The Petrified Forest, with maybe Ice-T recreating the Duke Mantee(Bogart) gangster but now "gangsta" role, and with maybe Amy Adams in the Gabrielle(Bette Davis) waitress role, and say, oh I don't know, maybe Sean Penn in the disillusioned Intellectual Alan Squier(Leslie Howard) role.*
This is EXACTLY why I think the idea of remakes is a bad idea in general. WHY must everything be a "high concept" update. The original PETRIFIED FOREST is perfect as is, and it's not going anywhere. So why do we need another version. We DON"T IMHO.
If you don't agree, I suggest you look at THE WOMEN from a couple of years back. What crap.
Edited by: Arturo on Jul 25, 2011 4:55 PM
-
*I still remember James Stewart testifying before Congress is the most passionate way possible against the colorizing of films. I'm with him.*
Would that he could've Filibustered until Congress voted to outlaw colorization once and for all.
-
*Did audiences of the 40s know that Lucille Ball did not actually sing in her films? Just wondering about that...*
Audiences may or may not have been aware that she was dubbed, as were some other stars featured in musicals. The trick was to get the singing voice to match up with the actor's talking voice as closely as possible. of course, AFTER THE FACT (after watching Lucy in TV for decades) it's quite obvious (in BEST FOOT FORWARD at least), that it's not Lucy doing the singing.
*She was cast in DeMille's THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH, but had to bow out due to pregnancy (the role was then given to Gloria Grahame). I think if she had done that film, it would've rejuvenated her motion picture career. Instead, she had to use THE LONG, LONG TRAILER as her comeback vehicle.*I Don't know if "comeback" is the right term. Because she "came back" popularity wise (and far surpassed her previous popularity) in another medium, "I Love Lucy". TLLT was more like a triumphal return to films, since she had since skyrocketed as a superstar.
-
I really enjoy BEST FOOT FORWARD, and it would rate as one of my favorites of her except for two things that ring false:
Her dubbed singing voice; it seems jarringly wrong after years of watching the sitcom with her flat nasally singing voice.
I think the originally scheduled (but pregnant) Lana Turner would have been an infinitely better choice: Lucy wasn't exactly the household name sexy movie star that would have the cadets all hot and bothered; Lana most definitely was.
So my choice would probably have to be THE BIG STREET (her best acting IMHO) or EASY TO WED, where she does Jean Harlow's classic role justice, and is the best thing about this remake of LIBELED LADY.
-
*I love both Westerns and Si-Fi and think there could one day be a good hybird made*
Maybe they have . . . in the upcoming COWBOYS VS. ALIENS.
And I always enjoyed the BACK TO THE FUTURE sequel set in the Old West.
Edited by: Arturo on Jul 25, 2011 3:01 PM
-
Dark Blue wrote:
*If you're not going to provide any documentation as to whether a film was an actual re-make of another film, you're just trying to make yourself look more informed than others by twisting the topic to your own uses.*
Documention? In what form? Posting the two screenplays side by side to compare?
-
I too am looking forward to Ann Dvorak, Lon Chaney, Joan Blondell among many others . . . but I'm most excited that my favorite Linda Darnell is being featured. FALLEN ANGEL is one I really enjoy; although I have the manufactured DVD from the Fox Film Noir series, it'll be good seeing it and having others exposed to it for the first time. A little disappointed that quite a number of her important roles were left out (but that just means that TCM should consider her for Star of the Month hint hint), I realize that I would trade any of those that are shown regularly and/or available on DVD for more obscurities like TWO FLAGS WEST, which will be shown and which I haven't seen since in decades.
Edited by: Arturo on Jul 21, 2011 3:00 PM
-
*I said Young would've been wrong if she had been considered for the part. The operative word is 'if.' Of course, she was not. And that is just as well.*
Which is why I said that this was a gratuitous dig at Loretta, since there is no basis to think that she was offered the role, and there is no connection otherwise, WHY must you throw her name in there, other than to denigrate her?
-
*But when we get to something like THE FARMER'S DAUGHTER or CAUSE FOR ALARM, she seems miscast to me and not at all believable. I am not the only poster on these boards who feels there were better best actress performances the year she won the Oscar.*
I don't see her miscast at all, but quite effective in those parts. I do agree, however, there were better performances nominated in 1947.
*For more information, I suggest you read a recent essay on her featured in Jeannine Basinger's recent tome THE STUDIO MACHINE, which points out many more aspects of Loretta's career, especially those that are very feminist and run counter to the prevailing notions of her image.*
Sorry, the title is THE STAR MACHINE.
-
*I learned that I don't respect Loretta Young as an actress. This actually bothers me. I wish I thought more highly of her skill on camera, and maybe I am not looking carefully at her best film work...but I think she is such window dressing in movies that there isn't a lot of real acting going on. I don't know if it's a combination of lackluster scripts and roles unworthy of her talent, or if she was too busy spending time in wardrobe and not working harder at her performance.*
Well, enough is enough with the Loretta-bashing. I have the utmost respect for Loretta Young as an actress, film personality, and long-lasting star. Obviously you and Terry E. have not seen many of her performances, nor are much aware about certain aspects of her career, but are basing your opinions on her latter-day image.
She WAS a fashion plate back then, as were many women stars: Carole Lombard, Kay Francis, Constance Bennett, Joan Crawford among many others. So there is no reason to slam her for being totally of her time in that respect.
She WAS a glamorous screen personality back then, as were many women stars: Lombard, Francis, Bennett, Crawford, Joan Bennett, Gloria Swanson, Marlene Dietrich, etc etc etc . . . . THIS is what audiences wanted back then, escapism from the Depression, and later, WW2. So WHY is she being singled out.
She WAS a female star that knew not just about clothes and makeup, but also which camera angles were most appropriate, which lighting would be most effective, and other technical aspect, just like Dietrich, Colbert, etc.
Yes, she WAS a star that was hypocritical between her public piety and her messy private life. But she at least tried to keep her private life just that; it would have been professional suicide to have made public that she had a child while unwed, from a married man: Clark Gable. Gable's career would have not been hurt. How many other female stars didn't have a similar dichotomy between their private and public selves. No one on these boards is singling them out for this.
She lasted a LONG TIME at the top. Why, because she FOUGHT studio heads for better roles, JUST like Bette Davis, Olivia DeHavilland, and many others. She stated that she wanted roles where she was more than just window dressing, and went on suspension more than once to avoid this type of role. It was NOT her fault that the studios only saw her as a beautiful clotheshorse and mannequin, and cast her on that basis. In 1939, she walked away from a lucrative multimillion dollar contract being offered by Darryl F. Zanuck to have her renew at 20th Century Fox. Why, because she was NOT happy with the roles she was being offered there. She had been promised in 1935, when Zanuck's 20th Century Pictures merged with Fox, that she would be getting the plumb roles at the studio. That turned out to NOT be the case, by her reckoning at least, and she chafed at what she did get.
So she had the wherewithall to leave the comfort of a studio contract, and go it alone. This was tantamount to committing career suicide, which very few stars were willing to attempt at that time (especially women), and a vengeful Zanuck made sure she was persona non grata and effectively blacklisted for a time from being hired by other studios. She was able to overcome this and made movies at Columbia, Universal and Paramount in the early 40s. She was effective in all her roles, including her Oscar winning performance. She always played her roles with delicacy, sensitivity and warmth.
She was in many great pre-code movies, where she was not only beautiful, but sexy as well. She could partner believably with Cagney, Tracy, Robinson and others. Later, at 20th Century Pictures and its successor, she was always up to snuff whether in a historical drama, screwball comedy, etc. She was versatile and an asset to any movie she was in.
In the late 40s she continued giving good performances, and some very good performances. BUT, she played a nun once, and suddenly her image became inextricably coupled with this.
However, she had the courage (AGAIN) to leaving movies in the early 50s when she saw good roles dwindling for female stars of her generation, and on threat of being blacklisted by the studios (AGAIN), she ventured into TV. She was very successful for the next decade, winning 3 emmys. She was involved in all aspects of her show.
So I feel it is very unfair for her to be vilified here as a talentless beauty. For more information, I suggest you read a recent essay on her featured in Jeannine Basinger's recent tome THE STUDIO MACHINE, which points out many more aspects of Loretta's career, especially those that are very feminist and run counter to the prevailing notions of her image.
PS - I can understand Terry's dislike of her, since he subscribes to the Auteur viewpoint, where the director is all, but YOU seem to love the glamour of the studio system in all its complexity, as well as having a sympathy for feminist causes.
-
*Geraldine Fitzgerald is a good choice as Mrs. Wilson...she's a method-type actress. Loretta Young, who is not a method actress, would've been all wrong if she had been considered for this part.*
What's up lately with all the haters jumping on Loretta Young?!? This mention here seems particularly gratuitous, as there was no way that 20th Century Fox would have considered her for this role. First of all, the ill feelings between Loretta and Darryl Zanuck had not vanished; it would be another 5 years before they both agreed to have her film at the studio again. Secondly, Zanuck wanted NO STARS for his pet project/labor of love WILSON, so as not to detract from the story by a star's presence; otherwise he would have considered some under contract like Don Ameche instead of Knox, or Gene Tierney instead of Fitzgerald. So even if Young and Zanuck were amenable to bury the hatchet, he would NOT HAVE considered her for this role.
So this was a cheap shot at Loretta Young was never considered for this role.
Edited by: Arturo on Jul 20, 2011 1:44 PM
-
TopBilled wrote:
*And there is an evening devoted to Marilyn Monroe, featuring early roles in DON'T BOTHER TO KNOCK and NIAGARA.*
Since these films were approximately her 17th and 19h out of 29 total, it's incorrect to say these are "early roles", since they were among the last half of the movies she was in. This would be more accurate if it stated " . . . featuring early *starring* roles in DON'T BOTHER TO KNOCK and NIAGARA", since they were the first two that Fox chose to star her.
Edited by: Arturo on Jul 19, 2011 6:10 PM
-
*I consider film art; I don't consider it literature. Literature has a specific definition and is one of the arts -- it isn't film.*
Of course film si literature, at least the part about the screenplay. This is why so many are published, why they are dissected in class. The reference is to THIS IS THE ARMY'S merits as a story.
-
Come on now. What biblical (and other historical) epic from the 50s-60s is a profoundly moving, accurately and correctly detailed, well-written, well acted and well-drected enterprise. My guess is precious few. The genre doesn't call for subtlety in any form, so the actors are left to their own devices, and chewing the scenery may be what they're left with.
Hollywood had a time-honored system of having actors/actresses play roles meant for much younger players: look at Norma Shearer in ROMEO AND JULIET; Joan Crawford in many of her roles in the 40s and 50s. So taking a pot shot at Rita Hayworth for this, and the supposed similarities with Norma Desmond (quite a few years older than Rita in 1953) is unfair and gratuitous.
My own favorite review/comment on this film is someone writing to the effect that "SALOME is like Gilda in Galilee".
-
This campy trash can be fun to watch (I've always enjoyed it, althought the blackface number is hard to watch), but it remains trash. It was part of Joan's intermittent attempts to show that she still has "got it"-sex appeal that is, trying to stave off the aging process (and the parts being offered) by showing that she is still in shape, and can still dance. MGM did her the favor by giving her a film that had been meant for Lana Turner; Joan could then rationalize to herself that she could play a part meant for someone about 32, and MGM got a burst of publicity on Joan in tights, Joan in her first musical in umpteen years, and most importantly, Joan back at her longtime home studio in some ten years.
I will never forget Carol Burnett's spoof of this on her show: "Torchy (or Torchy's) Song", where she is forever striking THAT POSE. Hilarious, and the last word IMO on this campy movie, even better than her "MIldred Fierce".
Edited by: Arturo on Jul 18, 2011 3:26 PM
-
*Then there's Geraldine Fitzgerald. I think she's totally miscast. She simply doesn't have the allure of a film noir femme fatale. Not even close. She doesn't quite seem to know what she wants to convey to the audience. Also, I think her strengths are as a supporting performer and I just don't think she's a leading lady.*
I really enjoy this movie, and think that part of its strengths is that we can't go by our preconceptions of the genre or of the players.
Geraldine Fitzgerald unfortunately never got the star parts that her first two Hollywood films seemed to warrant. Since both those films were exceptional (WUTHERING HEIGHTS, DARK VICTORY), it gave her a wrong sense of Hollywood, thinking (like Frances Farmer) that it Always would strive for Art and not the bottom line. Her quick dillusionment led her to do what many of her stablemates at Warners did: reject script after script. However, she did this before she was established as a star, and had no clout to back it up. So her career was crippled from the get-go. I disagree that she was not leading lady material, just that she didn't get suffient opportunity at it.
-
*They worked together in STAGE DOOR (for the first time?) Is that where they became friends?*
Don't know when they became friends, but Lucy had small parts in some of the Astaire-Rogers musicals prior to STAGE DOOR. I believe Ginger's mother Lela, a drama coach at RKO if I remember correctly, was instrumental in Lucy being cast in SD.
-
She gave the standout performance imho, in a cast of great performances, in the noir NIGHT AND THE CITY. She was withering (no pun intended) in her contempt for husband Francis L. Sullivan.
-
The interesting thing about this "painting" is that it is a studio portrait, a photograph, that was given an oil paint veneer to get the desired effect.
-
*It looks like the same congressional set was used in these classics: MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, LOUISIANA PURCHASE, BLOSSOMS IN THE DUST, and HEAVENLY DAYS.*
Well it might have been the same set with the MGM movies, but Paramount would not have been using that. As the actual location where Congress met was being depicted, it stands to reason that they would look similar, even though recreated by different technicians at different studios.
-
Redriver wrote:
*This is good historical drama, and I commend the ultra modern HBO for screening it. I wonder what inspred this. An anniversary of some kind?*
Actually, the HBO/Cinemax family of channels regularly show vintage film titles. They seem to licence many from 20th Century Fox (like WILSON), which are usually featured in the wee hours, usually on HBO Signature, HBO Family, or MoreMax.
fyi - Tomorrow morning Cinemax is showing DEMETRIUS AND THE GLADIATORS and THREE COINS IN THE FOUNTAIN back to back.
PS - Sorry about any hopes I raised. I knew I should have listed HBO in my thread title.
-
This 1944 Best Picture nomination will air on HBO Signature this Thursday, July 14, at 3:05 AM-PACIFIC Time. It has been discussed on these boards recently (on one of the threads dealing with Oscar nominations), and in the recent past (where someone saw it as on a list of big grossers but had never heard of it). So for those of you that have this service, here is an opportunity to view the movie that Darryl Zanuck forever felt was his greatest achievement, and was severely disappointed that it didn't win Best Picture. It stars Alexander Knox as the President, and Geraldine Fitzgerald as his wife.
-
There was a recent thread (In Films and Filmmakers?) discussing this very topic. You may want to check it out.
Which Movies should never be remade like ever
in Hot Topics
Posted
Again it's the nature of the beast. Stage plays are meant to be done on stages all over, and audiences that saw a given performance MAY see a different performance (a tightened script, say) a few weeks later. Likewise, different casts/productions will put on the same play in different cities, nevermind revivals years or decades later. An audience that saw a play in the 1930s will obviously most likely NOT be around to see the same play in the 2010s. BUT film can be forever, so whether I was at the 1936 premiere of the movie THE PETRIFIED FOREST, or I saw it for the first time last night on Netflix, I am seeing the same film as the person that did go to the premiere. Our images are made up of this shared experience in seeing the same movie, and every stage performance EVER of a given play will never have this impact.